1 / 72

Recent Research Affecting Children’s Advocacy Centers – Are We Working? Are We Needed?

Recent Research Affecting Children’s Advocacy Centers – Are We Working? Are We Needed?. The NCAC models, promotes, and delivers excellence in child abuse response and prevention through service, education, and leadership. Approximately 75 Million children in the United States.

odette-everett
Download Presentation

Recent Research Affecting Children’s Advocacy Centers – Are We Working? Are We Needed?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recent Research Affecting Children’s Advocacy Centers – Are We Working? Are We Needed? The NCAC models, promotes, and delivers excellence in child abuse response and prevention through service, education, and leadership.

  2. Approximately 75 Million children in the United States • Research suggests that one in four girls and one in seven boys will be the victim of some type of sexual abuse/assault before age 18. • This translates to almost 1.5 Million children who will be sexually abused or assaulted over the next 18 years!

  3. How do these compare with CSA? • Mental retardation (Joni and Friends International Disability Center) • 786,000 vs. 1,500,000 sexually abused – CSA 1.9 times more common • Autism – 1 in 150 children • 500,000 over the next 18 years vs. 1,500,000 sexually abused – CSA 3.0 times more common • Childhood Cancer - 10,500 children in 2007 (National Cancer Institute) • 198,000 over the next 18 years vs. 1,500,000 sexually abused – CSA 7.5 times more common

  4. Are we making progress? With all of this investment and effort, are we reducing child abuse and neglect?

  5. Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, is Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; and the Children’s Bureau.

  6. National Incidence Survey - 4 • The purpose of the NIS-4 is to provide updated estimates of the incidence of child abuse and neglect in the United States and to compare these results to prior NIS. • The data were collected from a nationally representative sample of 122 counties. Using a sentinel survey methodology where 10,791 child care professionals (representing 1,094 agencies) from various disciplines were involved.

  7. National Incidence Survey - 4 • More than 1.25 million children experienced maltreatment during the NIS-4 study year (2005-2006). • 772,000 neglected • 323,000 physically abused • 135,000 sexually abused • This reflects a 26% decline in child maltreatment per 1,000 children: • Child Physical Abuse rate decreased 23% during this time • Child Sexual Abuse rate decreased 44% during this time – this is statistically significant

  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • History of child sexual abuse linked with increased risk for: • alcoholism and alcohol abuse • chronic obstructive pulmonary disease • depression • fetal death • illicit drug use • ischemic heart disease • liver disease • intimate partner violence • multiple sexual partners • sexually transmitted diseases • smoking • suicide attempts • unintended pregnancies

  9. Welcome to the MDT, now get to work! How do we orient new members of the MDT?

  10. Jones, L.M., Cross, T.P., Walsh, W.A., and Simone, M. (2005). Criminal investigations of child abuse – the research behind “best practices”. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6(3), 254-268.

  11. Investigation “Best Practices” • Multidisciplinary Team investigations • Trained child forensic interviews • Videotaped interviews • Specialized forensic medical examiners • Victim advocacy and support programs • Access to mental health treatment • Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs)

  12. We just need to talk to the kid. Does using the CAC really help?

  13. Cross, T.P., Jones, L.M., Walsh, W.A., Simone, M., & Kolko, D.J. (2007). Child forensic interviewing in children’s advocacy centers: Empirical data on a practice model. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1031-1052.

  14. Are Forensic Interviews worth it? • Purpose - examine whether: • CAC cases have more MDT collaboration regarding forensic interviews than comparison samples • CAC cases have fewer forensic interviews and interviewers than comparison samples • Part of the Multi-Site Evaluation of Children’s Advocacy Centers involving the CACs in four communities and comparison communities without CAC services (Dallas, TX; Charleston, SC; Huntsville, AL; and Pittsburgh, PA).

  15. Are Forensic Interviews worth it? • A forensic interview was defined as: • “a professional interview designed to assess or evaluate the truth about a suspicion of child maltreatment” • “Subjects” - 1,069 sexual abuse cases in which forensic interviews were conducted at the research sites • Both CACs and comparison communities • Cases between December 2001 and 2003

  16. Are Forensic Interviews worth it? • No significant differences between the CACs and comparison communities regarding the number of forensic interviews conducted. • CAC communities demonstrated significantly higher rates of coordinated investigations between law enforcement/CPS • CAC – 81% • Comparison – 52%

  17. Are Forensic Interviews worth it? • Coordinated Interviews/Investigations: • Team forensic interviews: • CAC – 28% • Comparison – 6% • Case Review: • CAC – 56% • Comparison – 7% • Video/Audio tape of forensic interview: • CAC – 52% • Comparison – 17%

  18. Are Forensic Interviews worth it? • 83% of the forensic interviews in the CAC communities were conducted at the CAC – other interview settings: • Medical facility – 6% • School – 5% • Home – 4% • Alternatively, in the comparison communities, the most common location of forensic interviews were: • CPS Offices – 22% • Police Station – 18% • School – 19% • Home – 16%

  19. Is it working for our staff? This work is not for everyone, but what can we do to support those on the front lines?

  20. Perron, B.E. & Hiltz, B.S. (2006). Burnout and secondary trauma among forensic interviewers of abuse children. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(2), 216-234.

  21. Burnout, or what? • Purpose - to critically examine the factors associated with burnout and secondary trauma among forensic interviewers of children. • 60 experienced Forensic Interviewers, most with advanced degrees, completed online surveys • Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) • Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS) • Satisfaction with Organization Scale (SOS) • General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) • Demographics Questionnaire

  22. Burnout, or what? • The number of forensic interviews conducted is not significantly correlated to: • Disengagement (r = .07) • Exhaustion (r = .10) • Secondary trauma (r = -.11) • Those who conduct the most interviews were only slightly higher on disengagement. • There was a significant correlation between years of employment and burnout on the disengagement scale. • 2+ years of service

  23. Burnout, or what? • Individuals with higher organizational satisfaction had: • Significantly lower scores on disengagement and exhaustion • “Supervisors who are concerned about burnout may want to give attention to aspects of the organization and organizational climate that may be a source of stress.” (p. 230)

  24. Ten Fatal Flaws That Derail Leaders What can we learn from business?

  25. The Worst Leaders • Data sources: • Study 1 – 360-degree feedback data on more than 450 Fortune 500 executives – compared 31 fired over 3 year period with the 419 who kept job • Study 2 – 360-degree feedback from more than 11,000 leaders and then identified the 10% who were considered least effective • Process 3 – compare 31 from Study 1 with bottom 10% in Study 2

  26. The Worst Leaders • Lack energy and enthusiasm • Accept their own mediocre performance • Lack clear vision and direction • Have poor judgement • Don’t collaborate

  27. The Worst Leaders • Don’t walk the walk • Resist new ideas • Don’t learn from mistakes • Lack interpersonal skills • Fail to develop others

  28. I hope they like our new CAC! Is this really better in the minds of our clients?

  29. Jones, L.M., Cross, T.E., Walsh, W.A., & Simone, M. (2007). Do children’s advocacy centers improve families’ experiences of child sexual abuse investigations? Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1069-1085.

  30. Is this working for you? • Purpose - examine whether cases seen at the participating CACs were more likely to result in higher ratings of caregivers’ and children’s satisfaction with services than cases seen in the comparison communities which were not served by CACs. • Part of the Multi-Site Evaluation of Children’s Advocacy Centers involving the CACs in four communities and comparison communities without CAC services (Dallas, TX; Charleston, SC; Huntsville, AL; and Pittsburgh, PA).

  31. Is this working for you? • 284 sexual abuse cases (229 from the CAC cases and 55 comparison cases): • Child’s mother being the respondent in a majority of the cases - 79% • Alleged victim was at least 8 years old • 120 of these children also participated in a follow-up interview regarding their satisfaction with the case processes (90 from the CAC cases and 30 from the comparison cases).

  32. Is this working for you? • Caregivers whose children were seen at the CAC reported higher rates of satisfaction than caregivers whose children were seen at the comparison sites • There was increased Investigator Response satisfaction scores when the following occurred: • Substantiated finding by CPS • Criminal charges being filed • Investigator believing that the abuse occurred • Caregivers from the CAC samples were significantly more satisfied with the interview experience than caregivers from the comparison samples

  33. Is this working for you? • Most children expressed moderate to high satisfaction with the investigation, but: • 20% felt “very scared” during the forensic interview • 11% did not think the investigators understood children very well • 19% did not think the investigators explained what was happening very well • 33% thought they had to explain things to the investigator too many times • Significantly more children from the CAC sample described themselves as being “not at all” or “not very” scared versus kids from the comparison communities

  34. We might find some evidence. Who really gets a medical exam? Does having a CAC help?

  35. Walsh, W.A., Cross, T.P., Jones, L.M., Simone, M., & Kolko, D.J. (2007). Which sexual abuse victims receive a forensic medical examination? The impact of Children’s Advocacy Centers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1053-1068.

  36. Medical Exam, or not? • Purpose - assess whether CACs influence the delivery and timing of forensic medical exams, who receives these exams, and the satisfaction of caregivers with these exams. • Subjects - 1,220 sexual abuse cases • Additionally, a subset of 143 caregivers were interviewed regarding their satisfaction with forensic medical services. • Part of the Multi-Site Evaluation of Children’s Advocacy Centers involving the CACs in four communities and comparison communities without CAC services (Dallas, TX; Charleston, SC; Huntsville, AL; and Pittsburgh, PA).

  37. Medical Exam, or not? • Children who were most likely to receive a medical exam: • Younger children • Those with suspected penetration • Those who were physically hurt or injured while being abused • Those with supportive non-offending caregivers • Received forensic medical exam: • CAC cases – 48% • Non-CAC cases – 21%

  38. Medical Exam, or not? • No penetration in abuse disclosure: • These children seen at CACs were 4 times more likely to receive forensic medical exam versus children in the comparison sample. • Penetration in abuse disclosure: • These children seen at CACs were 1.5 times more likely to receive forensic medical exam versus children in the comparison sample.

  39. Should we have a CAC/MDT? Does it really help process these cases?

  40. Walsh, W.A., Lippert, T., Cross, T.E., Maurice, D.M., & Davison, K.S. (2008). How long to prosecute child sexual abuse for a community using a children’s advocacy center and two comparison communities? Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 3-13.

  41. Prosecution timelines • Purpose – • Examine the length of time between key events in the criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse • Compare the processing time for child sexual abuse cases to standards suggested for felony cases in general • Explore what case characteristics are associated with timely case resolution in child sexual abuse cases • Compare prosecution rates and outcomes in communities with a CAC vs. without a CAC • Subjects: • 160 child sexual abuse cases which were referred for prosecution and whose case was resolved during the study period were included.

  42. Prosecution timelines • Recommendations – In 1992, the American Bar Association proposed that: • 90% of felony cases be completed within 120 days of arrest, • 99% of felony cases be completed within 180 days of arrest, • 100% of felony cases be completed within 1 year of arrest. • 90% of misdemeanor cases be completed within 30 days of arrest, • 100% of misdemeanors be completed within 90 days of arrest. • These case processing standards have been adopted by 39 states.

  43. Prosecution timelines • Charging decision in child sexual abuse cases: • Cases seen at the CAC had a significantly faster charging decision: • CAC – 80% within 1-60 days • Comparison A – 49% within 1-60 days • Comparison B – 58% within 1-60 days • Case Resolution Time • 20% were resolved within 180 days • 30% took more than two years after indictment or were still pending

  44. Prosecution timelines • There were no significant differences in cases pending versus cases resolved except for the charges filed • Pending cases were less likely to have an aggravated sexual assault charge • Pending cases were more likely to have a Indecency with a Child charge • This suggests that more serious cases appear to be resolved more quickly

  45. Prosecution timelines • Total Case Processing Time: • Less than one year - 36% • Between 1-2 years – 29% • More than 2 years (or still pending) – 36% • Only 36% of all cases were resolved within the ABA guidelines described earlier

  46. Miller, A. & Rubin, D. (2009). The contribution of children’s advocacy centers to felony prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33, 12-18.

  47. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution Rates • The purpose of this study was to describe trends in felony CSA prosecutions across two neighboring districts in a large urban city when one district experienced significant increase in CAC participation in CSA cases compared to the neighboring district whose use of the CAC did not change substantially. • Data was obtained from the CACs, DA’s offices, and CPS in two adjoining districts of a large urban city (1992-2002) • One district dramatically increased its use of the CAC for CSA cases while the other minimally increased its use.

  48. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution Rates • Child Protective Services Findings: • Children with substantiated sexual abuse cases between 1994-2002: • District 1 – 2,617 • District 2 – 2,320 • Decrease in the number of CPS substantiated cases of sexual abuse during this time: • District 1 – 59% • District 2 – 49%

  49. Contribution of CAC to Prosecution Rates • Child Advocacy Center Findings: • Number of children evaluated by CACs for possible sexual abuse (1992 vs. 2002): • District 1 – 295% increase • District 2 – 125% increase

More Related